Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Orthodox Church Speaks for Ethnic Russians Because They Lack Other Institutions That Could, ‘Nezavisimaya Gazeta’ Says

Paul
Goble

Staunton, February 13 – Yesterday,
the editors of Nezavisimaya gazeta
pointed to a problem that is seldom discussed but represents a potential time
bomb under the Russian Federation: the presumption of religious organizations
to speak on behalf of those nations that do not have their own ethno-national
statehood within that country.

In a lead article, the paper addresses
the case of the ethnic Russians who do not have an ethno-national territory of
their own and of the ways the Russian Orthodox Church has acted on the
presumption that in the absence of the institutions such territories have, it
can speak for the ethnic Russians (ng.ru/editorial/2018-02-12/2_7170_red.html).

The relevant passage in the
editorial is as follows: “Sociological data cast doubt on the adequacy of the Church’s
representation of the national interests of the Russian people. We remind that
in the absence of other institutions of national representation, the Russian
Orthodox Church formed the World Russian Popular Assembly that has functioned
for more than decade.”

“The very same concerns other nationalities
of Russia which do not have their own national-territorial formations. Today,
they in fact are represented by religious groups” rather than by anyone else,
the paper says.

“Besides this,” the editors
continue, “doubts arise as to the utility of elbatoring public identity via the
broad application of religious elements. If even the most numerous ethnos is
not absolutely equivalent to the dominant religious tradition, then the current
designation of ‘spiritual-moral ties’ is false.”

And the editors say, “it is possible
that this explains why the imposition of a religious component in education is
not leading to an improvement of morality among Russians and especially among
the young. To the contrary, the cynicism of the younger generation is growing as
the role of the Church has been elevated.”

The paper’s editors do not address
the plight of other ethnic groups that do not have ethnic statehood there, but
its conclusion that the Russian Orthodox Church doesn’t adequately reflect the ethnic
Russian nation might be extended to others for whom other religious groups,
including Muslims and Protestants, might claim to speak for those lacking
territories.

And thus its message, whether
intended or not, is two-fold. On the one hand, the Kremlin would be better
served if the ethnic Russians had some kind of territorial formation within the
country that could support alternative representation of Russians, however
difficult such an entity would be to carve out and however threatening it would
be to the country as a whole.

And on the other, it represents at
least an implicit warning to the powers that be that doing away with existing
non-Russian republics could open the way for religious groups – and Muslim ones
in the first instance – to speak for the nations on which these were based but
who would then lack representative institutions.